<body><script type="text/javascript"> function setAttributeOnload(object, attribute, val) { if(window.addEventListener) { window.addEventListener('load', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }, false); } else { window.attachEvent('onload', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }); } } </script> <div id="navbar-iframe-container"></div> <script type="text/javascript" src="https://apis.google.com/js/plusone.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript"> gapi.load("gapi.iframes:gapi.iframes.style.bubble", function() { if (gapi.iframes && gapi.iframes.getContext) { gapi.iframes.getContext().openChild({ url: 'https://www.blogger.com/navbar.g?targetBlogID\x3d19839948\x26blogName\x3dVarsity+Blue\x26publishMode\x3dPUBLISH_MODE_BLOGSPOT\x26navbarType\x3dBLUE\x26layoutType\x3dCLASSIC\x26searchRoot\x3dhttps://varsityblue.blogspot.com/search\x26blogLocale\x3den_US\x26v\x3d2\x26homepageUrl\x3dhttps://varsityblue.blogspot.com/\x26vt\x3d-6620787535153815676', where: document.getElementById("navbar-iframe-container"), id: "navbar-iframe" }); } }); </script>
Varsity Blue

Visit the new Varsity Blue at http://www.umvarsityblue.com!

My Postgame Thoughts

Since I let Paul's post stand on its own after the game Saturday, here are a few things I'd like to add:
  • First off, Paul's text message about UConn had to do with the fair catch on a bounced ball. I'm not positive, but I think once the ball touches the ground in NCAA, the right to a fair catch is forfeited. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong.
  • Why did Rodriguez call a timeout (and the refs clarified that it was NOT a challenge) after one of the Wisconsin fumble recoveries. I thought the play was close enough to warrant a challenge, and I think it's ridiculous that the booth didn't use the commercial break to at least take another look. From the angles that were shown in the stadium, the Wisconsin player's left leg was out of bounds by the time he recovered the ball.
  • On that note, at halftime, I was formulating a post in my head about how the refs didn't cause Michigan to win... but they sure didn't help. They were much better in the second half, and Michigan may have even gotten a couple of breaks.
  • Steven Threet. 58-yard run. Awesome.
  • Wisconsin fans have picked up the torch from Penn State fans for the honor of "second biggest assholes in the conference." I said good game to a guy wearing a t-shirt that read "I wouldn't cheer for Michigan if they were playing Iraq" (yay for dated reference!), and he couldn't muster anything more than a sneer. He was one of the lesser douchebags I encountered all weekend.
And this stuff may deserve its own post, but I'll take this opportunity to bitch about the fans:
If you don't know anything about football, don't bitch about play calling, etc. I may start a regular feature on Mondays called "From the Dumbest Fan in the Stands," or give an "atmosphere report" for games that I go to. Option A will be accompanied by the photo you see on the right.
  • If you booed in the first half, you can try to say you were booing the coaching decisions, but you're either lying or you don't know about football. The coaches were calling downfield passes, but Threet wasn't executing. Would you have preferred they keep going to it so we could have had 8 turnovers? The offensive line couldn't block anyone on running plays. Sure, the coaches are partially culpable, but the players were struggling.
  • Despite all the bad, the stadium didn't get nearly as quiet during the first three quarters as I would have expected. Most of the noise was coming from the student section at that time, but there were still a few people in the South endzone stepping up.
  • By the time the fourth quarter rolled around, the crowd was as loud as I can remember it being.
  • Until the major comeback, my companion and I were the ONLY people in our immediate vicinity (south endzone, row 16) who had stood up on a third down in the game. That is pitiful if you can't even get up and yell on an important play.
  • At halftime, some idiot behind me yelled "Why don't you go back to West Virginia, ya stupid snake-oil salesman!" This was stupid for all the obvious reasons, and I thought I had the perfect response "How about we keep him and get rid of you?" Of course, after the game (and I have to give him at least some credit for staying the whole time), he was preaching the glory of the spread.
For ITP this week, we'll probably be taking a look at Wisconsin's two 2-point conversion attempts, and what was the difference between the two. If you'd prefer something else (and not the Threet keeper, since we've already covered the zone-read ad nauseam), drop your opinion in the comments and Paul and I will try to accommodate you.

Labels: , , , ,

“My Postgame Thoughts”

  1. Anonymous Anonymous Says:

    I was booing at my TV for the fumbles, which are starting to get ridiculous.

    Hopefully its not a continuing trend.

  2. Anonymous tbliggins Says:

    I wouldn't mind seeing ITP for the Koger TD. When the spread is working well it opens up the middle of the field, so it would be interesting to take a look at a well executed play like that.

  3. Blogger Max Says:


    I never played football (hockey guy), and my knowledge of formations and blocking schemes is only now progressing past infancy.

    That said, am I missing something or is Michigan's pass-blocking far, far better than its run-blocking? Again, I may just be flat out wrong, but it seems to me that the line is doing a pretty damn good job protecting Threet when he goes back to pass.

    If I am indeed observing appropriately, how can this be explained? I've always been under the impression that effective run-blocking is a precursor to pass-blocking.

  4. Blogger Sean Says:

    For the fair catch rule, it is my understanding that if you call a fair catch, you can't advance the ball even if it bounces off the ground (if the returner is the one that picks it up and runs). I think this happened on a Zoltan punt where a Wisconsin player tried to advance a bounce but the whistle blew immediately.

    The only thing I booed was the decision to not take a knee at the end of the half. Steven Threet doesn't exactly have a Kordell Stewart arm, so the chances of them actually scoring were very slim. The chances of something going bad, on the other hand, were very good as we saw.

    I agree about Wisconsin fans. All of the ones I met were douchebags, especially all of the ones if the student section. At halftime a couple got ejected I think. And I also agree about the dumb things fans have said. I heard someone ask if firerichrodriguez.com had been started at halftime. I simply rolled my eyes and said, "You realize this is the fourth game of his coaching career at Michigan." Those idiots left after the third quarter anyways.

  5. Blogger Tim Says:

    Either way, it should have either been an advanceable ball, or a 15-yard unsportsmanlike/delay penalty (which should have happened to UConn last year against Louisville).

  6. Blogger UofMSnowboarder Says:

    Pass blocking and run blocking are two different techniques. Pass blocking for tackles is generally using force to change momentum of (in a basic scheme) a DE. It's not necessary to stop the end, but to deflect him away from the quarterback. For guards and centers, it's similar, though generally they don't have anywhere to deflect the DTs to so they must stop them in their tracks. Good footwork and awareness is needed to get into a position to put yourself in a position where you can put a move on the defender, and be able to be able to come off your double teams if needed to pick up a blitzing linebacker.

    This is different than run blocking. Run blocking involves more strength to move the D-line back, but since you know where your back is planning on running, you know where to push the hardest.
    Zone blocking adds a new element to this, where the linemen need to be much more aware of who is where, but it's still revolves around the Oline to push back the Dline, not just keep them away from the QB.

  7. Blogger cfaller96 Says:

    If you guys want to get really fancy on your ITP, you could pull two similar passing plays, one from the 1st half and one from the 2nd, for compare/contrast purposes. I'm thinking Threet's 1st INT (intended for Odoms) was supposed to be a seam route, just like Koger's TD, for example. But I could be wrong.

  8. Blogger RJHOVE Says:

    I had some jackasses behind me too. They kept saying how Oh I guess this spread offense is great. Our offense sucks. The whole first half. I was wanted to ask them why are you even if you are just going to bitch the whole time and sometimes I felt like taking a swing at them. By the second half we were slapping fives together. It's amazing what winning can do.

  9. Anonymous Jorel Says:

    I'm only guessing on RR's decision to call a timeout rather than challenge:

    I think coaches only get one challenge per game, unless it is upheld, in which case, they get one more. At the time, RR had 3 time outs and it was midway through the 2nd qtr IIRC. So, burning a timeout allows the booth to review the play but doesn't use your team's only challenge if the replay call doesn't go your way.

    I'm not 100% sure I have the rules right, but if I do, RR made the right call.

  10. Blogger UofMSnowboarder Says:

    You get one challenge per half, no matter if it is upheld or not. The only difference the end result of the review is, if the call on the field is overturned, the challenging team doesn't lose a timeout.

  11. Blogger Tim Says:

    Wrong Nate, the rule (changed this year) is that you don't lose your challenge if you win.

    I don't remember if you get one per game or per half.

  12. Blogger UofMSnowboarder Says:

    My mistake. Didn't read about that change:
    (Rule 12-5-1-b). A new rule expands the ability of a head coach to challenge a reviewable ruling on the field. The head coach now retains a challenge if his initial challenge is successful and thus results in a reversal by the replay official. The coach will then still have a single challenge that he may use anytime during the game if his team has not used all its timeouts. Thus a team may have a total of two challenges in the game, but only if the first results in a reversal of the on-field ruling.

  13. Anonymous Anonymous Says:

    So.....who's the dude in the picture? I'm guessing he was bitching the whole game?

  14. Anonymous Anonymous Says:

    Dude, you should clarify that that pic is not of you.

  15. Anonymous Anonymous Says:

    I was in the South endzone (row 40) and we were doing our best to keep the crowd in it. I did let Trent have it after his muffed kick return though (just after getting burned in the open field) and I feel bad about it. the guys in front of me were WASTED old guys and were just bitching the entire game, until the comeback of course... South Endzone was the best place to be outside the student section apparently.

  16. Blogger dpjosuns Says:

    I'd like to see the Koger TD up close.

    A funny thing happened with the Thompson INT/TD. In the student section we all saw the pick and were goin nuts. So much so that we didn't realize it got ran back right away, at which point we all went nuts again. It was awesome.

    As far as stupid Wisco folks go, I had a kid standing in front of me that after a score we're going f-ing nuts and he holds up two fingers and says "2 possessions. You need 2 possessions." I say "Yup, we just need to possessions...wait for it." Shortly thereafter he went a few rows down to cram in with some other Wisco folks.

    I'd also like to see a post this week telling the fans to keep it going. The stadium at the end of that game was awesome, and it's the perfect opportunity to make sure that that awesome trend continues this weekend. There is a decided link between the success of our team (esp. on Defense) and how loud 110-111,000 people are.